Red roundup: Was Pac-10 expansion worth it?

Comments

BluCoug I think the word your looking for is dependent, I guess the PAC10 was
right about BYU academically.

BluCougProvo, UT

May 14, 2011 11:48 p.m.

Of course it is worth it, why wouldn't it be! Especially when you are depended
on others.

CougFaninTXFrisco, TX

May 14, 2011 8:24 a.m.

Two hundred words is not enough for the full story that was spread over many
weeks, and many proposals.

PAC16 - The first proposal (probably from
Texas) was for Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Baylor, UO, and OK ST. PAC
wouldn't take Baylor and made the switch / offer for Colorado. That move was
probably the demise of the possibility of the PAC16, because Texas legislature
was going to put up a fight to keep Baylor with Texas. Texas A&M was then
being lured by SEC, and Utah become the possible replacement.

@CougFaninTXDude Baylor was never apart of the deal what are you talking
about? The PAC would never allow a faith based university in like Baylor. Thats
the biggest reason why byu wasnt invited. You can thank Stanford for that cougar
fans.Also your sources arent very good. Did you read the last part of the
LA Times? It says even if Texas and others decide to stay in the Big 12, the
Pac-10 would still make a move to expand by two schools sources. Utah has
been on there radar for a long time, Scott knew that Texas A&M would not
join the conference because of offer from the SEC. Utah would have been apart of
the super conference. I am not most like Ute fans I would have liked byu coming
over with Utah it would have been great for both schools but again because its
owned by the church it was a huge no from the officials at Stanford.

CougFaninTXFrisco, TX

May 12, 2011 10:58 p.m.

@daedalus10, I'm not sure why you and some of your friends are so defensive
about this issue. I'm not trying make Utah look bad. I'm just stating a fact
that Utah was not part of the original 6 teams planned for PAC16 expansion.
Think about it . . . if Utah was at the top of their list regardless of whether
it was to be a 12 or 16 team conference, they would have gotten an invite at the
same time as Colorado.

CougFaninTX, you shouldn't lie and give a good way to look up your reference.

I did google the LA times blog post by Chris Dufresne, "Pac-10
poised to become 16-team conference."

There was not a single
direct quote from Larry Scott. The closest that it came to was the blogger
saying, "Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott said last week that the league was
working on possibilities that could be revolutionary."

CougfanTX, you are just ANOTHER cougar fan who is willing to lie to attempt to
make Utah look bad.

CougFaninTXFrisco, TX

May 12, 2011 4:39 p.m.

Since I can't add links on here, please research LA Times, June 9, 2010 article
title Pac-10 poised to become 16-team conference. You will see that Utah was
not part of planned Pac-16. There are direct quotes from Larry Scott, not a
reporter.

After you've read it, and recognize that I am correct, I
will be happy to move on.

Utah'95FPO, AE

May 12, 2011 10:15 a.m.

There is evidence that the Pac 10 had been considering adding Utah for several
years. Isn't it possible that Larry Scott decided to "swing for the
fences" by offering Texas a spot in response to the quickly-changing
landscape in the Big 12 (Nebraska moving to the Big 10, and Colorado committing
to come West)?

I'm a lifelong Utah fan, but I admit freely that Texas
would have been a better addition to the Pac 10 than Utah. According to several
sites, the Longhorns are the "most valuable" NCAA football team - they
would be more desirable than ANY TEAM, to any conference.

The
possibility that the Pac 10 may have factored in weakening the quickly improving
MWC in their decision-making is something I had not considered. It is an
interesting theory.

utesovertideSalt Lake City, UT

May 12, 2011 10:13 a.m.

@cougfanintx

Not according to Chip Brown, from orangebloods. He was
one of the closest reporters to the deal and said Utah always had a seat.

Also, the Pac 10 presidents approved each expansion scenario, so they
knew that Utah Colorado as additions was a possibility, and unanimously approved
it. This is all information that has been out there for almost 1 year. Please
educate yourself on it.

DutchmanMurray, UT

May 12, 2011 9:55 a.m.

CougfaninTX,

You are spinning the same refrain that has been
discredited for several months now. My information comes from the stellar
reporting of Chip Brown of Austin, Texas who covers the Big 12-2. His reporting
on how the whole expansion thing went down between the PAC 10 and Big 12 was
based on several interviews with the Texas AD DeLoss Dodds and all the AD's in
the Big 12. But I have learned that fans like yourself will keep spinning it
your way regardless of more accurate reporting because you want to believe what
you want to believe. I stand by my posted comment because it agrees with what
Chip Brown reported. The other fact is that the PAC 10 presidents were
considering Utah and Colorado for expansion back in 2004 and that is based on
statements made by former PAC 10 commissioner Tom Hanson. The deals are done.
There is a PAC 12. Utah and Colorado are in. You need to move on.

CougFaninTXFrisco, TX

May 12, 2011 9:34 a.m.

@ dutchman and gonefishn

You were both close, but you both missed it.
The PAC16 expansion included Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma
State, and Colorado. When Big12 was formed, Texas legislature forced the
conference to take Baylor over TCU. They were very clear this time around that
Baylor would again stay in the same conference as Texas.

Again, this
is not a knock on Utah. I'm sure that any school from a non-AQ conference would
accept an invitation to join the PAC12. I'm just saying that I don't think the
PAC10 ADs and Presidents would have approved expansion if they knew they would
only end up with Colorado and Utah. The wanted Texas and the treasure chest
that would have come with it.

Whether you want to believe it or not,
Colorado and Utah are also not the reason for the huge TV deal. The only thing
these schools bring (financially) is the opportunity for a conference
championship game and the money that comes with it.

DutchmanMurray, UT

May 11, 2011 9:54 p.m.

Oregonian,

"no one in Oregon is excited about Utah and Colorado
joining"

Well, at least two people are excited, the Presidents
of Oregon and Oregon State Universities who voted to admit Utah and Colorado.

By the way, Utah and Colorado have been in the expansion talks for your
conference since the days when Tom Hanson was your commissioner. Just be glad
that a state with 3.5 million people like yours has two PAC 12 teams as members.

KamUteSouth Jordan, UT

May 11, 2011 9:52 p.m.

@Oregonian

Who cares what you think? Is Oregon one of the PAC 12
elite?The 9-15 bowl record is very impressive. How many bcs bowls has Oregon
won? I can count the victory on one finger. For an elite program, your record
against Utah or BYU for that matter is not impressive either. Not as elite as
most would think The dogs from Utah have actually accomplished more with less.
Without Phil Knight, Oregon would simply be no better than Eugene Community
College. Utah may be a dog right now but our dogs will be more competitive than
most of the conference of champions. Won't it be fun having Stanford playing in
snow on December 7 for the championship?

DuckhunterHighland, UT

May 11, 2011 9:23 p.m.

@Dutchman

That really wasn't a knock on Utah although I can see how
you took it that way. The rejection by Texas and the other Big12 schools was an
embarrassment to the pac10 as they fancy themselves the ultimate conference.
Taking Utah was in part, not completely but in part, to save face from that
rejection.

But ultimately it doesn't matter because it went the way
it went and Utah is now a pac10 member and will get all of the benefits of that
membership. If wilner is correct then it is undeniable that the additions of
Utah and colorado add monetary value so whatever the anciliary reasons for all
that happened really are ultimately Utah and colorado have earned inclusion.

But I do believe the rejection from the Big12 schools was an
ebarrassment for the pac10 but they still seem to have bounced back nicely.

toosmartforyouFarmington, UT

May 11, 2011 9:00 p.m.

@ Moderate:

I agree with you. Utah is in the PAC 12 and USU should
just forget about playing them.

Oh, you meant BYU? I think they have
split with the Utes. I see no reason to continue the (new) rivalry game as BYU
has nothing to gain by playing it. Or the other (old) rivalry game (U of U vs
USU) for that matter. BYU used to be able to brag that they stopped Utah from
winning a conference championship, or visa versa, but the historical members of
the PAC 12 will do that now each year in a fairly routine manner. No one else
need apply, except Colorado. They need to beat Utah as badly as Utah will need
to beat them.

ModerateSalt Lake City, UT

May 11, 2011 8:25 p.m.

A True Summary Of Facts:1) One team from Utah is a Pac 12 member.2)
The other team will never progress if it can't let go of #1

toosmartforyouFarmington, UT

May 11, 2011 8:11 p.m.

It's a fact that Utah was #12 of 12 when making up the PAC 12. How can you say
they were "always in" the mix when there was a hesitation before they
were officially invited? They are tied for last place with the smallest stadium
in the PAC 12. In fact, they don't even have the largest stadium in Utah
although it is bigger than USU's. Colorado fans are into the Broncos, Nuggetts
and Rockies. I don't see or hear about any of them drooling over the Buffs and
their lousy program. So I guess maybe the PAC 12 got a championship game, a
great TV deal and two new "botton feeders." It remains to be proven
differently on a week-to-week basis that the Utes can play with the big boys and
not just win a bowl game where they were overlooked by the competition. Last
year they got lucky in 4 games and showed their weakness against a few better
teams. Good luck in the PAC 12--hope it was worth the money because that's all
either you or they got out of it.

sammygSpringville, UT

May 11, 2011 7:46 p.m.

"Wow. Duckhunter and TJ seem so reasonable and non-provocative today. How
refreshing."

LOL

"The truth is all the hot
chicks said no so we got what we got. The PAC10 knew they could offer Utah a can
of Alpo and they'd come running."

LOL x 10

Funniest
comment yet on the expansion... from a PAC-10 perspective.

OregonianSherwood, OR

May 11, 2011 6:43 p.m.

Dutchman, gonefishn-

Yeah sure, the PAC10 started expansion saying,
"Let's get Utah and anyone else that will come." The truth is all the
hot chicks said no so we got what we got. The PAC10 knew they could offer Utah a
can of Alpo and they'd come running. Frankly, no one in Oregon is excited about
Utah and Colorado joining at the expense of our teams losing the yearly USC/UCLA
home and home matchups. While the TV deal is great, we could have ended up with
more per team without expansion. The games they will televise pretty much shows
how much TV execs think the two newbies will add to the bottom line; one for
Colorado (against USC) and zilch for Utah.

MiPIowa City, IA

May 11, 2011 6:20 p.m.

Veritas: ditto.

As far as "worth it": only time will tell.
Of course, it's guys like Wilner who are supposed to analyze in depth. But his
article? How is that even printable? It's neither entertaining nor practical...I
made it half-way through and said "why am I reading this?" (much like
you are doing with my post right about now). He's going a long, long, long way
to prove a point that's well, pointless.

Let's look at the SEC. They
expanded to 12 by adding Arkansas and South Carolina. Neither have won the
conference, though the Hogs went to a BCS bowl last year. But it would be hard
to argue that their addition has hurt a conference that was already pretty
strong. By creating the divisions and the conference championship game, the BCS
era became (ahem, as much as I can't stand it) the SEC era.

The
PAC-12/Larry Scott, as well as Delaney/Big-10, are simply copying a business
model that has worked before.

My hunch is that it will work out just
fine.

Magna Ute FanMagna, UT

May 11, 2011 6:09 p.m.

Wow. Duckhunter and TJ seem so reasonable and non-provocative today. How
refreshing.

WHAT NOW?Saint George, UT

May 11, 2011 6:04 p.m.

San Jose Mercury News writer...

San Jose St. is in the PAC 12?

When San Jose St. becomes a member of the the PAC 12 (13,14,15,16),
Wilner will have an opinion that matters.

Until that happens, go back
to the WAC...

IbleedcrimsonCottonwood Heights, UT

May 11, 2011 4:50 p.m.

"USC (and maybe others) are already asking for a higher percentage of the
new TV deal with the threat of exploring independence or another
conference."

Is this a "summary of the facts."

care to show us any credible source from USC or any other PAC 10 school
thats saying this for the record?

gonefishnSalt Lake City, UT

May 11, 2011 4:49 p.m.

cougfaninTXYou are not correct, The Pac was going to expand with or
without Texas. The Texas angle was not being persued until the Big 12 started to
self destruct. Texas then became the big fish and Utah took a back seat. With
that said many national articles at the time stated that even if Texas went to
the Pac 12 / 16 the Pac did not want Kstate, Kansas (kansas committed to kstate
to not leave them), Mizzou, Baylor, Texas Tech, Iowa State. Nebraska went to the
Big 10 and Colorado was in the PAC to be joined by Texas, Texas A&M, OKLA,
OKLA State and Utah.

eastcoastcoug,WSU, OSU, and UofA are very
large land grant, state universities that are research institutions, similar to
most schools in the conference, Fact. "Bias vs. Mormons" = sour
grapes. Don't be a victim

Veritas AequitasFruit Heights, UT

May 11, 2011 4:47 p.m.

This is an example of Win-Win.

PAC got the money from the
championship game, and Utah received the money from the PAC TV contract.

Both sides win.

Now, Utah needs to produce on the field and
they have the upside of exposure, the Rosebowl, and recruiting, and never have
to travel to Laramie again.

Nobody can kid anyone on this one. Utah
was the only viable option for Larry Scott. The BCS wins and research facilities
put them in the position to be here.

Utah deserves it.

TJEagle Mountain, UT

May 11, 2011 4:35 p.m.

Utah especially came out smelling good on this one. Whatever the reason, it
happened and it will be huge for them. If they can take advantage of the chance
they have received and place in the top 3 in Football and eventually in Bball,
they should be able to build a top notch program. Good luck to them.

DutchmanMurray, UT

May 11, 2011 4:15 p.m.

CougFaninTX,

I guess the old adage is true that if you repeat
something often enough it will suddenly become a fact. This has been covered ad
nausea but here it goes again: In the end, all that matters is that there were
only two possible scenarios and they both included Utah. Utah was in, no matter
which way it would have played out. If Texas said no it was going to be the
PAC-12 with Utah and Colorado. If Texas said yes it was going to be the PAC-16
with Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Utah, and Colorado. Texas
A&M was NEVER going to join the PAC under any circumstances, so it's
irrelevant to consider an impossible scenario. Again, Texas A&M was not
coming and Scott knew that. The only scenarios that were ever actually possible
were PAC-16 with Utah or PAC-12 with Utah. Scott was never going to invite
Kansas. That was a rumor of desperation floated by the Kansas athletic
department and was never going to happen. Can we put this issue to rest now?

eastcoastcougDanbury, CT

May 11, 2011 4:07 p.m.

Utah was an afterthought in this although they have made themselves interesting
with 2 big BCS wins and Final 4 appearance. I didn't realize WSU, OSU and UA
were huge research institutions. I've been around and over recruiting in several
multinationals (including big Pharma) and these schools never jump out for their
research reputation. I think it is a smoke screen for the University Presidents'
bias vs. Mormons. Research prowess is never mentioned in any other BCS
conference. Give me a break!!!!

DutchmanMurray, UT

May 11, 2011 4:04 p.m.

Duckhunter,

I like you and I was really enjoying your positive post
for a change and then came this, "Especially once the big12 teams rejected
them since they needed to try and save some face after that embarrassment."
You always have to get in at least one negative zinger don't you?

I did appreciate your candor recently on how BYU funds its outstanding
athletic facilities with big time help from the LDS Church. That was a real eye
opener for me.

CougFaninTXFrisco, TX

May 11, 2011 3:47 p.m.

Let's be honest . . . PAC10 really wanted the University of Texas and were
willing to expand to a 12 or possibly 16 team conference to get them. The
singular goal with expansion was University of Texas, not Colorado or Utah.

They offered Colorado first because they knew Colorado would accept.
PAC10 hoped that with Nebraska and Colorado leaving the Big12, Texas would feel
compelled to move with fear of the conference falling apart.

When
Texas rebuffed the PAC10, it didn't make sense to stick with an 11 team
conference. They had to find a 12th team to at least get a conference
championship game, and we all know Utah was selected.

Let's be
honest, if the PAC10 AD's and Presidents had known that expansion was only
Colorado and Utah, none of them would have been in favor. Neither school is
responsible for the huge TV contract. Financial this expansion hurts the other
schools. USC (and maybe others) are already asking for a higher percentage of
the new TV deal with the threat of exploring independence or another
conference.

This is not intended to be a knock against Utah, just a
summary of the facts.

patriotCedar Hills, UT

May 11, 2011 3:22 p.m.

It was worth it for the U and Colorado! Both schools are rollen in the dough
now. If I were one of the other original pac 10 schools I would see my normal
payout go down because of the expansion.

DuckhunterHighland, UT

May 11, 2011 3:06 p.m.

Well if wilner is correct and it increased the value to each school by $800,000
then it was probably worth it. The shear size of the tv payout to all of the
schools in the pac10 makes that seem like a pittance but when you consider that
all any of the mwc teams get from the mountain is 1.2 mil per year $800,000 is
alot of money. That is also as much as most low tier bowl payouts per team. So
yes based on that you would have to say it was worth it so long as the entire
reason for it was to maximize the dollars each school receives.

Now
does it help tv ratings? That is certainly up for debate. Does it increase the
strength of the conference in athletics? That is debatable as well. Will the
other pac10 schools eventually regret it? That remains to be seen.

But based on dollars received for this current deal then yes it looks like it
was the right thing to do. Especially once the big12 teams rejected them since
they needed to try and save some face after that embarrassment.

dustmanNampa, ID

May 11, 2011 3:04 p.m.

I like that there was an expansion. I was having a hard time watching the
pac-10, but since utah was added I have more incentive to do so now. I know BYU
is said to have the mormon following, but Utah has so many mormon fans that
they'll have fans every where they go and they will tune in when televised.
Colorado has a great tradition that will get a boost from this move. I think
everyone in the PAC benefits from this.

hagarDoylestown, PA

May 11, 2011 2:57 p.m.

I was pleased that the PAC 10 decided to expand, but disappointed that BYU was
not included. It would have been more logical than adding Colorado whose long
time tradition looked eastward.

gonefishnSalt Lake City, UT

May 11, 2011 2:12 p.m.

Wilner's math does not add up. $50 million divided by 12 is $4.16 million in
added value per team per year by adding CU and U of U. Even if you back out the
$14 million for the championship game you are left with an added value of $3
million per team at minimum. Wilner has been all over this story but it
seems he is bending his own numbers to lessen the value.

Joe SchmoeOrem, UT

May 11, 2011 1:58 p.m.

It's going to be an interesting year for Utah.

utesovertideSalt Lake City, UT

May 11, 2011 1:14 p.m.

All commenters should note from the get go that Jon Wilner, although a good
writer, has been looking for a reason that the Pac 10 should not have expanded
from the get go. He is still yet to find one, so hopefully he buries this
hatchet.

If you use his logic he presents here, the Pac 8 should have
never expanded to the Pac 10. Read Wilner's blog comments, and you'll see there
are a lot of people who are fans of the Pac that are all for the expansion.